Law reports

All items: Equal pay

  • expand

    Barry v Midland Bank plc [1997] ICR 192 EAT (2 reports relating to this case)

    • Equal pay: No indirect pay discrimination in voluntary severance scheme

      Date:
      1 May 1997

      In Barry v Midland Bank plc, the EAT holds that a woman bank employee was not indirectly discriminated against on the ground of her sex when the bank calculated her severance pay by reference to her part-time salary at the time of termination, notwithstanding that she had been employed full time for the first 11 years of her 13 years' service.

    • Contractual redundancy payment did not discriminate

      Date:
      1 March 1997

      In Barry v Midland Bank plc the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's finding that a voluntary severance payment scheme, which failed to take into account any full-time service a part-time worker may have had, was not unlawfully indirectly discriminatory.

  • expand

    Barry v Midland Bank plc [1998] IRLR 138 CA (2 reports relating to this case)

    • Equal pay: Calculation of part-timer's severance payment objectively justified

      Date:
      1 March 1998

      Calculating severance payments by reference to final pay, so that a part-timer who had previously worked full time did not have her full-time service reflected in her severance payment, was not proven to have a disproportionately adverse effect on women as compared with men but, if there was indirect discrimination, it was objectively justified, holds the Court of Appeal in Barry v Midland Bank plc.

    • Severance pay terms upheld

      Date:
      1 March 1998

      In Barry v Midland Bank plc the Court of Appeal has ruled that a redundancy pay scheme whereby severance pay is calculated on the basis of the employee's current pay at the date of termination does not contravene Article 119 of the EC Treaty even though it disadvantages part-time workers who previously worked full time by not taking into account any full-time service they may have had.

  • expand

    Barry v Midland Bank plc [1999] IRLR 581 HL (2 reports relating to this case)

    • Equal pay: Severance payment based on final salary not discriminatory

      Date:
      15 September 1999

      Calculating severance payments by reference to length of service and final pay, so that a part-time employee who had previously worked full time did not have her full-time service reflected in her severance payment, was not discriminatory, holds the House of Lords in Barry v Midland Bank plc.

    • Severance terms did not discriminate

      Date:
      1 September 1999

      In Barry v Midland Bank plc the House of Lords has ruled that a redundancy pay scheme whereby severance pay is calculated on the basis of the employee's current pay at the date of termination did not contravene Article 119 of the EC Treaty even though it disadvantages part-time workers who previously worked full-time by not taking into account any full-time service they may have had.

  • expand

    Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd [2003] IRLR 332 EAT (7 reports relating to this case)

    • Equal pay and sex discrimination: New guidance on burden of proof in sex discrimination claims

      Date:
      3 July 2003

      In Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd, the EAT holds that by the insertion of the new section 63A into the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, a "shifting" burden of proof is introduced into sex discrimination claims, making it necessary to set out fresh guidance as to the correct approach for employment tribunals to take.

    • Case round-up

      Date:
      1 June 2003

      Our resident experts at Pinsents bring you a comprehensive update on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice on what to do about them.

    • Guidance on burden of proof

      Date:
      1 June 2003

      In Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd (3 April 2003), the EAT sets out guidance on the correct approach to the burden of proof in equal pay and sex discrimination cases.

    • EAT slams City culture of pay secrecy

      Date:
      1 May 2003

      Louise Barton has won her appeal against the employment tribunal's decision in her sex discrimination and equal pay case.

    • Equal value update

      Date:
      1 May 2003

      Kate Godwin charts the recent developments on equal pay and reports on key equal value cases.

    • Case round-up: transparency of incentive schemes and time limits for making discrimination claims

      Date:
      22 April 2003

      This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering: transparency of incentive schemes; and time limits for making discrimination claims.

    • Burden of proof for pay equality shifts to firms

      Date:
      15 April 2003

      The EAT's shrewd ruling over a City bonus claim has wide implications for all employers fighting sex discrimination cases and serves as a warning over transparent pay scales. By Makbool Javid of DLA.

  • expand

    Bateman v Hull & East Riding Community Health NHS Trust [2001] ET/1807708/00 (1 report relating to this case)

    • Case digest

      Date:
      1 August 2002

      Hilary Slater, consultant with Cobbetts solicitors, provides a round-up of employment tribunal decisions on discrimination.

  • expand

    Benveniste v University of Southampton [1989] IRLR 122 CA (2 reports relating to this case)

    • Benveniste v University of Southampton

      Date:
      1 March 1989

      In Benveniste v University of Southampton [1989] IRLR 122 CA, the Court of Appeal held that once the reason which led to a woman being paid less than a man employed on equal work has been removed, it is no longer possible for an employer to justify the difference in pay under s.1(3) of the Equal Pay Act.

    • Material factor defence evaporates when justification disappears

      Date:
      1 March 1989

      In Benveniste v University of Southampton (23.11.88) EOR24D, the Court of Appeal rules that once the reason which led to a woman being paid less than a man employed on equal work has been removed, it is no longer possible for the employer to justify the difference in pay under s.1(3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970.

  • expand

    Bestuur van het Algemeen Burgerlijk Pensioenfonds v Beune [1995] IRLR 103 ECJ (1 report relating to this case)

    • ECJ rules on pension discrimination

      Date:
      1 December 1994

      The European Court of Justice has handed down its rulings in six cases on issues relating to sex equality and occupational pension schemes in light of the decision in Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group EOR32A.

  • expand

    Biggs v Somerset County Council [1995] IRLR 452 EAT (2 reports relating to this case)

    • EAT limits retrospective claims

      Date:
      1 September 1995

      In Biggs v Somerset County Council (6 July 1995) EOR63B, the EAT rules that a part-time worker dismissed in 1976 was time-barred from bringing an unfair dismissal complaint in 1994 shortly after the decision of the House of Lords that the hours per week qualifying condition under UK law was contrary to European Community law.

    • Sex discrimination: Part-timer's dismissal complaint out of time

      Date:
      1 August 1995

      In Biggs v Somerset County Council, the EAT holds that an industrial tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear a part-timer's claim for compensation for unfair dismissal brought shortly after the House of Lords' decision in R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission in March 1994, in respect of a dismissal which took place 18 years previously.

  • expand

    Biggs v Somerset County Council [1996] IRLR 203 CA (2 reports relating to this case)

    • Time limit on retrospective claims

      Date:
      1 May 1996

      In Biggs v Somerset County Council (26 January 1996) EOR67A, the Court of Appeal holds that it was "reasonably practicable" for a part-time employee to have brought an unfair dismissal complaint within the requisite three months from her dismissal in 1976, notwithstanding that she was excluded under UK law by reason that she worked insufficient hours.

    • Sex discrimination: Feasible for part-timer to claim unfair dismissal in 1976

      Date:
      1 March 1996

      It was "reasonably practicable" for a part-time employee dismissed in 1976, who complained of unfair dismissal 18 years later, to have done so within three months of her dismissal, holds the Court of Appeal in Biggs v Somerset County Council.

  • expand

    Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz [1986] IRLR 317 ECJ (2 reports relating to this case)

    • Exclusion of part-time workers from occupational pension schemes may contravene Article 119

      Date:
      1 September 1986

      In Bilka-Kaufhaus v Weber von Hartz (13.5.86) EOR9A, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) holds that the exclusion of part-time workers from occupational pension schemes contravenes Article 119 of the EEC Treaty if this exclusion affects significantly more women than men, unless the employer can show that the exclusion is based on objectively justified factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex.

    • Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz

      Date:
      1 August 1986

      In Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz [1986] IRLR 317 ECJ, the European Court of Justice held that the exclusion of part-time workers from occupational pension schemes contravenes Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome if this exclusion affects significantly more women than men, unless the employer can show that the exclusion is based on objectively justified factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex.

About this category

Precedent-setting cases from the EAT and appellate courts, along with reports of selected tribunal cases, relating to equal pay.